Friday, July 24, 2015

I have a message for Gov. Rick Scott on behalf of the millions of Floridians and tourists who enjoy our award-winning state parks: Lay off them. They are neither for profit nor plunder.

Few truly believed that you would be an environmental leader, like most of your predecessors both Republican and Democrat, but we are shocked by the extent to which you have decimated the Department of Environmental Protection and the water management districts.

You've ignored the wishes of 4.2 million voters — 75 percent of those who voted in 2014 — by not properly funding conservation and preservation programs. You seem to miss the connection between our natural resources and tourism and business relocations. Did you ever stop to think that our beaches, rivers, lakes and state parks are the reason people come to Florida?

You brag about the state's natural beauty and claim you are responsible for it. You're not. Your actions have been detrimental and destructive. Reverse course before the damage is irreversible.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Just one more urban sprawl outrage after another, and this one at the expense of affordable housing.

On Tuesday, July 14, the Sarasota County Commission will hold the first of two public hearings on a developer's proposal, supported by County staff and the developer-packed Planning Commission, to slash the affordable housing required in the Affordable Housing Overlay far east of I-75 from 50% to 60% of all homes on the 412 acres, to a mere 15%.

The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would also reduce the required time for the housing to remain affordable from forever (the current requirement if it is 50% affordable) or ten years (if it is 60%) to just five years.

"Affordable" under current data is defined as sold to a family (if four people) earning not more than $60,700 for a certain portion of the homes and $48,560 for others.

The hearing is scheduled as the final item, number 8, in the morning session that begins at 9 am at the north county administration center, 1660 Ringling Boulevard in downtown Sarasota. A second public hearing is scheduled for September 22.

The Affordable Housing Overlay was approved in 2006 to allow urban density in this 412 acre parcel, at the eastern end of Palmer Boulevard where it connects to Iona Road, east of the Bee Ridge Extension. The affordable housing requirement was the trade-off accepted by the developer for the urban density, in what was designated the Affordable Housing Overlay. With that, the property was rezoned from one unit per ten acres to 2.5 units per acre.

This followed an unsuccessful attempt by the developer to extend the Urban Service Area boundary to include the property, in 2002.

Amazingly, County staff agrees with the developer that the affordable housing requirement should be essentially abandoned on the basis that "it has been ineffective in producing the desired results since its adoption in 2007."

Has anyone told staff that was when a housing recession hit the county and the nation and almost nothing was being built in Sarasota County, affordable or otherwise, until very recent years? Of course they know this, but they just want to allow the developer the excuse, the same one that was used to gut the Sarasota 2050 Plan that was finalized around the same time.

Another reason for the delay in developing this property is that the developer tried previously to gut the affordable housing requirement with a proposal to instead make a large payment for affordable housing elsewhere. That was rejected by the County Commission on a 5 to 0 vote on November 20, 2013, on the basis that the affordable housing requirement was too important to weaken or abandon. Certainly, that argument remains more viable than ever.

Now however, the developer has hopes that this County Commission, which is more decidedly pro-developer than ever before, will say yes.

Concerned citizens will be watching closely, to see if there is anything that will prevent these Commissioners from advancing urban sprawl, even their expressed commitment to affordable housing.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

This document was prepared solely for the use by the Client. No party may rely on this report except the Client
or a party so authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a reliance letter). Any
party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the document in its entirety and not on any
excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon this document is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full
responsibility and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings from
(project name) resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing
of commodities and materials, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behaviour of
consumers or competitors and changes in the owners’ policies affecting the operation of their projects.

This hilarious spectacle of a consultant backing away from its own product comes after a series of hedges and admonitions early in the paperthat repeatedly express skepticism about the very possibility of coming up with a reliable methodology. What comes across most emphatically in the AECOM report is that Fiscal Neutrality Methodology -- and in particular, the AECOM presentation to the Sarasota County Commission about it -- are what the term "unreliable" was invented to mean.

Sarasota Taxpayers paid how much for this?

Last year, when the County was choosing AECOM and planning a series of meetings with the new consultant, a group of residents asked to be included in the meetings. The idea was to avoid what has happened so often in the past: The County meets with representatives of only one side of a countywide civic issue that has at least two sides, and they hash out a "plan," which is then presented as if it were somehow the distilled brainstorm of all of the people (see, for example, what happened with the revisions to the 2050 plan.)

Citizens for Sarasota County asked that one or two residents be included so that actual people would have a voice in the process. It would have brought an added perspective, they argued. Instead, we the people have the opportunity on July 8, 2015, to kill a few minutes speaking in a hearing after all was "worked out" to the satisfaction of County staff, its "Unreliable 'R' Us" consultants, and the developers to whom their bosses owe their loyalty.

What is clear, on the other hand, is that the developer + finance + construction sector of the Sarasota economy has a strong and intimate relationship to the outcome of the AECOM decision: One Commissioner, Christine Robinson, is also the salaried executive director of the Developer-DrivenArgus Foundation. The other four Commissioners have only offered silence when the community sought to challenge the legitimacy of a public official simultaneously required to execute the business of a private lobbying group.

Perhaps the most reliable thing to come out of any hearing about AECOM's Fiscal Neutrality Guidance document is that the Community had no say in the development of its proposals, and will have no influence over their adoption. This in fact is how things work when what you have is the very definition of an oligarchy.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Public hearing on final adoption of a FiscalNeutrality Methodology, to determine what developers have to pay for the impacts of Sarasota 2050 developments.

The Methodology, or more properly a mythology as it is based on fanciful fiction, is specifically designed to minimize what developers must pay and make sure that growth does not pay its own way.

It was developed in exclusive consultation with developer representatives, despite requests for inclusion by public interest advocates, and the results reflect that.

The Methodology ensures that 2050 developers pay nothing toward County operating expenses, even if serving their remote Villages costs more, such as for fire, emergency and law enforcement services. It does that by adopting a "per capita" analysis which simply compares the average costs and taxes per County resident and then applies that to the residents in the Village. Of course, simple math requires that the figures will exactly match, so the developer pays nothing extra.

Even worse, the Methodology allows Sarasota 2050 developers to count impact fees as sufficient for impacts on County, state and federal roads (even though there are no impact fees for federal roads or state funding) and for law enforcement, fire and emergency management, justice, general government, libraries and parks and recreation, unless the County staff "negotiates" for a developer to pay something more. This is despite the fact that impact fees are demonstrably inadequate to make growth pay its own way, leading to shortfalls in needed funding for facilities.

These proposals are a breach of the public trust. Concerned citizens should let their voices be heard.

County Commissioners Give Benderson 37 Percent Increase in UTC Development

This week, the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve Benderson Development’s request for a 37 percent increase in the amount of development permitted at the University Town Center campus at the intersection of I-75 and University Parkway.

In doing so, the county may have set itself on a collision course with the federal government.

I was there to remind the commissioners and other parties of a long-suppressed piece of information: the Army Corps of Engineers permit that was the first and overarching set of conditions by which all future development, mitigation and conservation would be guided. The conditions set forth by the Corps were unequivocal, and have been supported by emails from Corps staff. The conditions of the permit are permanent and binding, and stipulate that the 51-acre parcel south of DeSoto Road, as well as the northward-extending Cooper Creek wildlife corridor, are to be preserved in perpetuity as mitigation for the development’s filling of wetlands, and subsequent construction.

The preservation in perpetuity totaling some 74 acres of this high-quality upland habitat was, in itself, the mitigation. The permit conditions included some built wetlands, some enhanced wetlands, and some removal of invasive species, but the centerpiece of the permit was to be a conservation easement and subsequent preservation, protecting this land, and a number of endangered species that have been observed there, forever, period—unlike the SWFWMD conservation easement, which isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, and has merely allowed Benderson Development to hold the property for future development while paying no taxes.

Plainly alarmed, the commissioners stared at me, as I was presenting, like deer caught in the headlights. The fix was in, the vote ordained, but how could they vote as instructed if I was right? After all, Randy Benderson himself was in the front rows, along with a horde of lawyers and consultants, probably costing him upwards of $4,000 an hour.

Another developer, Rod Krebs, who attends every meeting, was present. As was Bob Waechter, the Republican machine’s enforcer, who, with Eric Robinson, is well-known (and who made a plea bargain in order to avoid a felony conviction) for dispensing dark PAC money—or withholding it—illegally removing opposing campaign signs, and illegally mass-mailing concocted character assassinations. Glowering in the back row, he literally cast a pall over the room.

After the public input session, the commission adjourned to give county staff and the horde of suits time to huddle over the Corps permit, to find something that would get the commissioners off the hook, and allow them to vote as they were intending to vote. At last they broke up, and Matt Osterhoudt, manager of Development Services and the County’s Environmental Protection department, looked triumphant.

Back in session, Osterhoudt proclaimed, under oath, that the Corps permit had expired. Mistaking, intentionally or not, the compliance deadline for permit expiration—of which there is none—Osterhoudt threw himself under the bus for his masters, and gave them the erroneous sense of security that there was nothing to worry about in the Corps permit. The preordained vote went forward.

The only positive note in this exchange came as Osterhoudt reminded Benderson Development that they would be required to renegotiate a permit for all the intended takings of preservation lands, wetlands, and mitigation uplands for development.

It won’t be easy. The federal government is largely beyond the reach of local corruption and undue influence. While it is said that the Corps never denies a developer a permit, it still takes what it negotiates in its permits very seriously, and is reluctant to give away further concessions to developers. If 74 acres of wetlands are to be mitigated, 74 acres will still be mitigated, just differently.

It may be years before Benderson Development has all the necessary permits to proceed with the construction that the county gave its permission for yesterday.

Sometimes, the victories come out of the interstices, the places between the facts.

And there still remains the matter of the Corps having assigned responsibility for the permit’s preservation requirements to the county, and what, if any, impact yesterday’s vote will have on that. Has the Sarasota County Commission acted in violation of a federal permit? Stay tuned.

I will be drafting a letter to the Corps, relating the above facts, and suggesting that their enforcement division take an interest in how Sarasota County operates. I will also be drafting an email to the commissioners and their staff attorney, correcting the misleading information given to them by Osterhoudt, and attaching a copy of my letter to the Corps.

At that point, until a new permit application affords the opportunity for public input, my bag of tricks is empty, unless someone comes forward who would like to sue the county.

Andy Mele is the Suncoast Waterkeeper and Chair of the Sarasota Conservation Committee for the Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club Group. He is also the author of the landmark environmental book, Polluting for Pleasure.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Letter to the Editor

From: Vicki Nighswander MAT,MPH

......

Sarasota, FL 34233

Commissioners Chose Expansion vs Safety

All County Commissioners received an email prior to their Benderson expansion meeting requesting a postponement until they have time to review the annual crash report. I was told the crash report would be completed in May. At a public hearing one commissioner stood up and noted that safety was of primary importance but yet existing crash data isn’t included in development decisions. We are no longer living in a small community. We are experiencing the consequences of growth. Modifying roads, intersections, bridges and lights after the fact isn’t safety first thinking. The vote for the Benderson expansion, among others, and not paying attention to existing data doesn’t show safety concern for the Commissioner’s constituency. There are Band-Aid components of the approval, but ultimately our safety wasn’t a primary consideration. Hope we all remember how these Commissioners voted for development expansion vs constituent safety for the next election.

Yesterday, the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve Benderson Development’s request for a 37% increase in the amount of development permitted at the University Town Center campus at the intersection of I-75 and University Parkway.

In doing so, the County may have set itself on a collision course with the federal government.

Benderson UTC Mall, Sarasota/Manatee Lakewood Ranch

I was there to remind the Commissioners and other parties of a long-suppressed piece of information: the Army Corps of Engineers permit that was the first and overarching set of conditions by which all future development, mitigation and conservation would be guided. The conditions set forth by the Corps were unequivocal, and have been supported by emails from Corps staff. The conditions of the permit are permanent and binding, and stipulate that the 51-acre parcel south of DeSoto Road, as well as the northward-extending Cooper Creek wildlife corridor, are to be preserved in perpetuity as mitigation for the development’s filling of wetlands, and subsequent construction.

The preservation in perpetuity totaling some 74 acres of this high-quality upland habitat was, in itself, the mitigation. The permit conditions included some built wetlands, some enhanced wetlands, and some removal of invasive species, but the centerpiece of the permit was to be a conservation easement and subsequent preservation, protecting this land, and a number of endangered species that have been observed there, forever. Period. Unlike the SWFWMD conservation easement, which isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, and has merely allowed Benderson Development to hold the property for future development while paying no taxes.

Plainly alarmed, the Commissioners stared at me, as I was presenting, like deer caught in the headlights. The fix was in, the vote ordained, but how could they vote as instructed if I was right? After all, Randy Benderson himself was in the front rows, along with a horde of lawyers and consultants, probably costing him upwards of $4,000 an hour. Another developer, Rod Krebs, who attends every meeting, was present. As was Bob Waechter, the Republican machine’s enforcer, who, with Eric Robinson, is well-known (and a convicted felon) for dispensing dark PAC money – or withholding it – illegally removing opposing campaign signs, and illegally mass-mailing concocted character assassinations. Glowering in the back row, he literally cast a pall over the room.

After the public input session, the Commission adjourned to give County staff and the horde of suits time to huddle over the Corps permit, to find something that would get the Commissioners off the hook, and allow them to vote as they were intending to vote. At last they broke up, and Matt Osterhoudt, manager of Development Services and the County’s Environmental Protection department, looked triumphant. Back in session, Osterhoudt proclaimed, under oath, that the Corps permit had expired. Mistaking, intentionally or not, the compliance deadline for permit expiration – of which there is none – Osterhoudt threw himself under the bus for his masters, and gave them the erroneous sense of security that there was nothing to worry about in the Corps permit. The preordained vote went forward.

The only positive note in this exchange came as Osterhoudt reminded Benderson Development that they would be required to renegotiate a permit for all the intended takings of preservation lands, wetlands, and mitigation uplands for development.

It won’t be easy. The federal government is largely beyond the reach of local corruption and undue influence. While it is said that the Corps never denies a developer a permit, it still takes what it negotiates in its permits very seriously, and is reluctant to give away further concessions to developers. If 74 acres of wetlands are to be mitigated, 74 acres will still be mitigated, just differently.

It may be years before Benderson Development has all the necessary permits to proceed with the construction that the County gave its permission for yesterday.

Sometimes, the victories come out of the interstices, the places between the facts.

And there still remains the matter of the Corps having assigned responsibility for the permit’s preservation requirements to the County, and what, if any, impact yesterday’s vote will have on that. Has the County Commission acted in violation of a federal permit? Stay tuned.

I will be drafting a letter to the Corps, relating the above facts, and suggesting that their enforcement division take an interest in how Sarasota County operates. I will also be drafting an email to the Commissioners and their staff attorney, correcting the misleading information given to them by Osterhoudt, and attaching a copy of my letter to the Corps.

At that point, until a new permit application affords the opportunity for public input, my bag of tricks is empty, unless someone comes forward who would like to sue the County.

Our Mission

Citizens for Sarasota County is a new coalition to promote ethical, responsive government that preserves and enhances Sarasota's unique natural environment and cultural heritage while building a sound local economy based on effective stewardship and innovation. Facebook conversation here.